Can someone please explain why adding codas of the pianist's own imagination is acceptable?

And why is it that only Liszt's compositions receive the crazy endings? I never heard of someone adding in their own coda for Chopin's pieces or Beethoven or or or or...!

Quite frankly I think codas are garbage.

The Liszt Piano competition is a hypocrite. In the rules it specifies that arrangements will not be acceptable. However listen to this recording. Clearly this dumb@$$, the winner of the competition, added in his own flavor. Absolute crap! (http://www.liszt.nl/nederlands/2002Jean ... dyNo.2.mp3)

As you can tell, I am strongly biased. I believe that the true beauty lies in the execution of the piece not by murdering a composition with a coda the pianist created.

_________________Madam, what makes you think that I play with my hands?

Well, I haven't watched the video because I'm not familiar with the piece, so I probably couldn't tell the difference. But cadenzas are typical to concertos - it's a section near the end of usually the first movement of a concerto where the orchestra shuts up and the pianist does a long improvisatory thing - it might actually be written out, but even when it's written out, it has an improvisatory style to it. A coda is just an optional end to a piece, usually an addition to sonata form but certainly not always, that happens after the recapitulation. Sometimes it's only a few bars. I think Beethoven put like a 200-measure coda in one of his symphony movements. Can't remember which one...

Good example of a cadenza: the long solo thing at the end of the Grieg concerto, first movement.

Good example of a coda: the thing in A major at the end of the Grieg concerto, third movement, which uses thematic material from both the main theme and the lyrical theme of the movement.

Well, determining apropos would of course depend on the composer. We know about Chopin's wishes regarding his music. And we know that Liszt apparently felt justified in improvising his own way in someone else's music. So you'd think he'd not care about it being done with his own. And then, of course, it's a matter of judging how well the pianist improvised....

For many composers, improvisation was considered to be a fundamental talent required of anyone who dared to call his or her self a musician, which is why some obviously considered it to be acceptable and even expected practice, even in works by other composers.

Also, I should point out that it seems the main reason why Chopin objected to Liszt's improvisations was not that he did it at all, but that he made no attempt to even mimic Chopin's style in the process, and Liszt's own style was far different than Chopin's- must flashier, and different in other ways I can't quite put to words. And yes, you can guarantee that, for Liszt, it was all about showing off.

Also, I should point out that it seems the main reason why Chopin objected to Liszt's improvisations was not that he did it at all, but that he made no attempt to even mimic Chopin's style in the process, and Liszt's own style was far different than Chopin's- must flashier, and different in other ways I can't quite put to words. And yes, you can guarantee that, for Liszt, it was all about showing off.

Nonetheless, Chopin was openly envious of Liszt's prowess, in particular the way he played Chopin's Etudes.

Nonetheless, Chopin was openly envious of Liszt's prowess, in particular the way he played Chopin's Etudes.

Yes, of course he was. I got the impression from my readings on the subject that there was very much a sort of love-hate relationship between the two. I even got undertones of that in Liszt's biography of Chopin. Chopin was jealous of Liszt's technical prowess, and Liszt was jealous of Chopin's composition genius, though both were certainly respectable enough in their own right in their "weak" area...

I just wanted to point out that in 2 of my editions in the Hungarian Rhapsody, Liszt marked a cadenza in the score right at the end of the Friska. Other than the weird arpeggio he inserted at the end of the Lassan, the pianist really only added anything in that one place (he changed one other written cadenza/arpeggio thing at beginning of Lassan). The cadenza was always supposed to be about the performer and his talents ... a moment to show-off, if you will. More recently however, performers have just cut out these unwritten cadenzas .. or substituted their own cadenza with those pre-written by recognised composers.

A note in my Alfred Edition, edited by Maurice Hinson, says "In 1885 Liszt wrote a whole series of cadenzas to this Rhapsody." and includes two versions. I've been looking off and on for an edition of all his cadenzas, but doesn't seem to be easy to find.

So, IMHO, this pianist actually was true to Liszt spirit ... I enjoyed the cadenza very much ... and the cembalon ornaments were sick.

_________________the one, the only ... Nathan Coleman"You see, my piano is for me what his ship is to a sailor; more indeed: it is my very self, my mother tongue, my life." - Franz Liszt

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum